Yep, this has been my assumption as well ever since I realized that John McCain kept winning a senate seat despite him being pretty awful. And after the last year seeing what is going on in AZ I'm more confident of that position than ever.
Computational power is a double edged sword. It is now easier to commit election fraud (through bad and criminal designs) BUT it is also easier to figure out that fraud and theft is taking place.
I've been saying since about 2008 that unless the entire elections infrastructure and process is one hundred percent open source, hardware, firmware, software and processes, then the safe assumption is that rigging is going on.
And for the people who say that we should use block chain technology, okay but considering the following. It is impossible to secure online elections. https://youtu.be/-bUWVgYz114
it takes people time to realize that paper is better not because its better tech, but because it takes far longer to fake and make sure they can't be verified.
funny enough, little do they know that digital crypto works the same way: its not unbreakable. we know exactly how to break it. it just would take too long.
but hell with digital there are more drawbacks: you can delete your mischief in 10s. you can force people to vote your side with block chains as you can verify if they did afterwards. etc.
I know a few people working in the quantum stuff, without doing myself too much, let's say they haven't exactly figured it out yet. it always looks like its at the corner and then we fail.
that said, all current crypto algorithms that are nist approved are also broken by the same people. just like the algorithms before them a few non approved ones are unbroken and thats why states are talking about banning crypto again, like they did 20y ago (it was forbidden to encrypt in Europe f.e.)
This is the exact opposite of what you want; you can't fake a cryptographically secure election. On the other hand, an election that uses paper ballots requires an obscene amount of trust. It's not just trusting the counters or poll workers, but do you trust the ballot printers, the drivers, etc? If you combined voter ID + EMV chip with a blockchain implementation (basically your signing key is generated on your ID, and never leaves it) it's possible to make a publicly verifiable, but anonymous, voting system. Add multi-key signing to the mix (i.e. multiple DMV workers have to use their key to register a voter, and multiple poll workers have to use their key to verify the ID) then you can pretty much eliminate all fraud. It's not possible to beat math.
Why can't we use both? Have a paper ballot with a signature that can be validated by the blockchain? Paper ballots are easy for non-technical people to use and the block chain provides a way to publicly verify the chain of events for that ballot.
It doesn't work like that, you need a verifiable chain of trust in order for it to be secure. The implementation is complex, but how a person would use it isn't. As a voter, all you would have to do is present your ID to the staff, they would "verify" it, then you would go stick your card in a voting machine, select your candidates, submit, and done. There is a lot more complexity with regards to what is happening during verification and such, but that's all transparent to the voter. Also, because everything happens on the card, you don't even need the machines to be secure. You would even get a "receipt" containing an anonymous ID so that you could go look up the exact candidates you voted for after the fact via a nice web site, as it's all public anyways.
And what do you do when the government implements standard crypto which government and Silicon Valley quantum machines already have the ability to break?
But let’s ignore that for a second.
You actually think government would implement such a technical solution?
And that they would still control the “secure” machine and the “secure” chip on the Voter ID they are very much interested in having?!?!?
They would shill blockchain and not use it properly on purpose. Just like they do with everything else.
Then you also have to worry about local voting administrators average age 65 understanding this technology to properly implement and being able to audit it all.
Or we can vote on paper which is easily understood and fully auditable.
All of this is the ramblings of a person who doesn't understand how any of this stuff works.
And what do you do when the government implements standard crypto which government and Silicon Valley quantum machines already have the ability to break?
There are classes of classical algorithms, specifically some elliptic curve implementations, that are quantum secure. This is a non-issue.
You actually think government would implement such a technical solution?
This is the only real issue, they'll be resistant to any system that actually works.
And that they would still control the “secure” machine and the “secure” chip on the Voter ID they are very much interested in having?!?!?
The machine is not secure, nor does it need to be. The chip on the ID is the same kind as in your bank card, it's not possible for an external system to interact with it like you think. Because certain information never leaves it, it can't be manipulated. In addition, everything I described is open source and verifiable, so no issue on that front either.
They would shill blockchain and not use it properly on purpose. Just like they do with everything else.
Because it's public, there is literally no way for them to manipulate things without it being apparent. That's actually the power of a blockchain, it's a cryptographically secure ledger system.
Then you also have to worry about local voting administrators average age 65 understanding this technology to properly implement and being able to audit it all.
They don't need to do any of that. To them, it would be a simple machine that accepts voter ID cards, and has buttons like "approve" and "deny". The implementation is complicated, not the interface.
Or we can vote on paper which is easily understood and fully auditable.
The current system is not auditable. That's what you guys don't understand. Once the ballots have been separated from the envelopes, any possibility of actually auditing things is gone, short of finding actual fake ballots by testing the paper. On the other hand, because a blockchain based mechanism is public (including the issuance of coins, ID cards, etc) but anonymous, it's possible for any person, anywhere in the world, at any time (including while voting is happening) to audit the cryptographic signatures. This is one of the reasons why bitcoin has become so popular, it's not possible to fake a transaction.
spez:
So, I am taking the piss out of you a bit, but I'm not doing out of a place of disrespect, only frustration. You actually hit it on the head with
You actually think government would implement such a technical solution?
however, you don't understand why. They'll prevent such a system from being implemented by mobilizing people like you; those that are wary of a computer based system, so they argue against it without really understanding how it works. The same thing happens with nuclear energy; ever notice it's not just old hippies coming out to protest new nuclear power initiatives, it's also the right wing "muh Fukashima! REEEEE, RADIATION!" types? It's because even though people like you have good intentions, your inability to trust ANYONE that knows more than you makes you useful idiots for keeping the status quo. I'm probably more right wing than you, and I'm a software engineer, so even if you remain skeptical please at least keep an open mind about such things.
Significantly, the computer system shows vote adjudication logs for prior years; but all adjudication log entries for the 2020 election cycle are missing. The adjudication process is the simplest way to manually manipulate votes. The lack of records prevents any form of audit accountability, and their conspicuous absence is extremely suspicious since the files exist for previous years using the same software. Removal of these files violates state law and prevents a meaningful audit, even if the Secretary wanted to conduct an audit. We must conclude that the 2020 election cycle records have been manually removed.
Likewise all server security logs prior to 11:03 pm on November 4, 2020 are missing. This means that all security logs for the day after the election, on election day, and prior to election day are gone. Security logs are very important to an audit trail, forensics, and for detecting advanced persistent threats and outside attacks, especially on systems with outdated system files. These logs would contain domain controls, authentication failures, error codes, times users logged on and off, network connections to file servers between file accesses, internet connections, times, and data transfers. Other server logs before November 4, 2020 are present; therefore, there is no reasonable explanation for the security logs to be missing.
Oops! I'm sure this problem will DEFINITELY be fixed by your electronic voting system of choice administered at the state level per the constitution.
Once an electronic vote is cast the amount of evidence to reference in regard to fraud is significantly diminished compared to original paper copies.
In addition electronic data is easily destroyed allowing significantly more bad actors access to delete unwanted information as seen above.
"But muh hypothetical blockchain is so much more secure."
Please. A large percentage of the "secure" blockchain monetary systems were scams. Whats the chance that we can trust a 50 different governments to implement this all correctly.
IM SORRY I CANT HEAR YOU OVER THE SOUND OF INDUSTRIAL SHREDDERS AND BURNING CHICKEN FARMS
The system used to count the votes is much less important that WHO is counting the votes and what the verification is. That is the only implication of my post. Paper is not infallible.
Paper ballots only, with the paper being the official vote. I don't mind computer assisted tabulation to speed that up. But they've proven that no digital records can ever be trusted.
That's fair. But the Dominion stuff was all electronic, and that's where the real volume happened. No paper to even tecount. If they have to print paper and fill in the bubbles, they have to do it everywhere. And we know in GA, there were pristine ballots that would never pass scrutiny in a legit audit. A legit oversight process on the day of, would have caught it as well.
The bulk of election fraud isn't done through machine manipulation. They still do it the old fashioned way by stuffing ballot boxes, ballot harvesting, and good old fashioned vote dumping.
I don't think they'll use machine fraud as the main way. Because it's looked at too heavily now.
You can't stop dishonesty and where there's a will there's a way. No one wants to say if, but the hard truth is how bad do we want to make sure the other guy doesn't get in? If they cheat, you cheat bigger. There is no high road. You get your people in and we push reforms to stop cheating. But you're going to have to cheat to get them there. It's the hard truth.
It's both. They need the fraudulent paper ballots to match the computer totals when doing simple recounts (not real audits). That's why they always scream loudly for recounts as proof there was no fraud. The digital fraud alone is not enough.
If they have the fraudulent paper ballots, why do they need any digital fraud? Couldn't they have just fed the fraudulent ballots through the machine until the got the total they wanted?
Strict chain-of-custody. If chain of custody is broken, all ballots in question shall be invalid.
Every ballot must be counted separately by two teams each consisting of a registered member of both parties who have long-term partisan voting record for the party to which they belong, of which both people must agree on how each vote is counted, and observed by another team of like composition, who must rectify any discrepancies between the final tallies, if any occur, and all three teams must sign an oath under penalty of perjury and imprisonment that certifies that the ballots are authentic and have been counted correctly.
Security cameras at all polling stations, covering every inch of anywhere ballots are manufactured, stored, transported in/to, and counted, monitored by two teams of two people with the same qualifications as above, with a team of like composition, with each team accountable to the other.
If any evidence of fraud is presented, an automatic recount shall begin involving all ballots originating at the precinct or election in question, and shall follow the same processes followed above.
My idea is that if you have two highly partisan people on opposite sides counting the votes and making sure the count is secure and accurate, neither one will allow the other to commit, allow, or ignore fraud. And second team is to ensure a corrupt deal or other foul play doesn't occur. I know that voter fraud is a uniquely left-wing problem and conservatives don't do it, but all laws must be applied equally, and I want all cheating to the prevented, even if it benefits us.
Yep, this has been my assumption as well ever since I realized that John McCain kept winning a senate seat despite him being pretty awful. And after the last year seeing what is going on in AZ I'm more confident of that position than ever.
Computational power is a double edged sword. It is now easier to commit election fraud (through bad and criminal designs) BUT it is also easier to figure out that fraud and theft is taking place.
I've been saying since about 2008 that unless the entire elections infrastructure and process is one hundred percent open source, hardware, firmware, software and processes, then the safe assumption is that rigging is going on.
And for the people who say that we should use block chain technology, okay but considering the following. It is impossible to secure online elections. https://youtu.be/-bUWVgYz114
You don’t want blockchain, technology, or open source.
You want paper.
it takes people time to realize that paper is better not because its better tech, but because it takes far longer to fake and make sure they can't be verified.
funny enough, little do they know that digital crypto works the same way: its not unbreakable. we know exactly how to break it. it just would take too long.
but hell with digital there are more drawbacks: you can delete your mischief in 10s. you can force people to vote your side with block chains as you can verify if they did afterwards. etc.
Exactly. I don’t want to be divisive to the crypto shills. I understand the platform.
Anything electronic can be hijacked in numerous ways along the line.
There’s all kinds of ways to hijack blockchain.
Evangelists just refuse to be creative enough.
The worst being quantum which given the fact that no one has talked about it for the last 4 years means it’s likely active and in use.
Think about that. People pushing for a “solution” where only the government and Silicon Valley has the means to break it and control the results.
Sounds familiar.
No wonder there are inorganic groups pushing for acceptance of such a system.
I know a few people working in the quantum stuff, without doing myself too much, let's say they haven't exactly figured it out yet. it always looks like its at the corner and then we fail.
that said, all current crypto algorithms that are nist approved are also broken by the same people. just like the algorithms before them a few non approved ones are unbroken and thats why states are talking about banning crypto again, like they did 20y ago (it was forbidden to encrypt in Europe f.e.)
This is the exact opposite of what you want; you can't fake a cryptographically secure election. On the other hand, an election that uses paper ballots requires an obscene amount of trust. It's not just trusting the counters or poll workers, but do you trust the ballot printers, the drivers, etc? If you combined voter ID + EMV chip with a blockchain implementation (basically your signing key is generated on your ID, and never leaves it) it's possible to make a publicly verifiable, but anonymous, voting system. Add multi-key signing to the mix (i.e. multiple DMV workers have to use their key to register a voter, and multiple poll workers have to use their key to verify the ID) then you can pretty much eliminate all fraud. It's not possible to beat math.
Why can't we use both? Have a paper ballot with a signature that can be validated by the blockchain? Paper ballots are easy for non-technical people to use and the block chain provides a way to publicly verify the chain of events for that ballot.
It doesn't work like that, you need a verifiable chain of trust in order for it to be secure. The implementation is complex, but how a person would use it isn't. As a voter, all you would have to do is present your ID to the staff, they would "verify" it, then you would go stick your card in a voting machine, select your candidates, submit, and done. There is a lot more complexity with regards to what is happening during verification and such, but that's all transparent to the voter. Also, because everything happens on the card, you don't even need the machines to be secure. You would even get a "receipt" containing an anonymous ID so that you could go look up the exact candidates you voted for after the fact via a nice web site, as it's all public anyways.
And what do you do when the government implements standard crypto which government and Silicon Valley quantum machines already have the ability to break?
But let’s ignore that for a second.
You actually think government would implement such a technical solution?
And that they would still control the “secure” machine and the “secure” chip on the Voter ID they are very much interested in having?!?!?
They would shill blockchain and not use it properly on purpose. Just like they do with everything else.
Then you also have to worry about local voting administrators average age 65 understanding this technology to properly implement and being able to audit it all.
Or we can vote on paper which is easily understood and fully auditable.
Cmon.
All of this is the ramblings of a person who doesn't understand how any of this stuff works.
There are classes of classical algorithms, specifically some elliptic curve implementations, that are quantum secure. This is a non-issue.
This is the only real issue, they'll be resistant to any system that actually works.
The machine is not secure, nor does it need to be. The chip on the ID is the same kind as in your bank card, it's not possible for an external system to interact with it like you think. Because certain information never leaves it, it can't be manipulated. In addition, everything I described is open source and verifiable, so no issue on that front either.
Because it's public, there is literally no way for them to manipulate things without it being apparent. That's actually the power of a blockchain, it's a cryptographically secure ledger system.
They don't need to do any of that. To them, it would be a simple machine that accepts voter ID cards, and has buttons like "approve" and "deny". The implementation is complicated, not the interface.
The current system is not auditable. That's what you guys don't understand. Once the ballots have been separated from the envelopes, any possibility of actually auditing things is gone, short of finding actual fake ballots by testing the paper. On the other hand, because a blockchain based mechanism is public (including the issuance of coins, ID cards, etc) but anonymous, it's possible for any person, anywhere in the world, at any time (including while voting is happening) to audit the cryptographic signatures. This is one of the reasons why bitcoin has become so popular, it's not possible to fake a transaction.
spez:
So, I am taking the piss out of you a bit, but I'm not doing out of a place of disrespect, only frustration. You actually hit it on the head with
however, you don't understand why. They'll prevent such a system from being implemented by mobilizing people like you; those that are wary of a computer based system, so they argue against it without really understanding how it works. The same thing happens with nuclear energy; ever notice it's not just old hippies coming out to protest new nuclear power initiatives, it's also the right wing "muh Fukashima! REEEEE, RADIATION!" types? It's because even though people like you have good intentions, your inability to trust ANYONE that knows more than you makes you useful idiots for keeping the status quo. I'm probably more right wing than you, and I'm a software engineer, so even if you remain skeptical please at least keep an open mind about such things.
Lotta leftover hemp from ww2 in my area. Its paper and keeps kids from inhaling sprayed grass lol
I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of industrial shredders and burning chicken farms.
It doesn't matter what the votes are on, it matters who's counting them, period. Paper is not more secure - there was plenty of paper fraud in 2020.
I don't dispute this.
I dispute the idea that any electronic system is more auditable and more secure.
Quick question since you decided to create a straw man. Where did more fraud occur in 2020? Electronically or on paper?
Let the guys who audited Antrim county know your thoughts. I'm sure the deleted log files that we will never get to see left things safe and secure:
https://www.scribd.com/document/488110536/Antrim-Michigan-Forensics-Report-121320-v2-Redacted#from_embed
Oops! I'm sure this problem will DEFINITELY be fixed by your electronic voting system of choice administered at the state level per the constitution.
Once an electronic vote is cast the amount of evidence to reference in regard to fraud is significantly diminished compared to original paper copies.
In addition electronic data is easily destroyed allowing significantly more bad actors access to delete unwanted information as seen above.
"But muh hypothetical blockchain is so much more secure."
Please. A large percentage of the "secure" blockchain monetary systems were scams. Whats the chance that we can trust a 50 different governments to implement this all correctly.
IM SORRY I CANT HEAR YOU OVER THE SOUND OF INDUSTRIAL SHREDDERS AND BURNING CHICKEN FARMS
The system used to count the votes is much less important that WHO is counting the votes and what the verification is. That is the only implication of my post. Paper is not infallible.
https://greatawakening.win/p/12hRQHTDzE/paper-voting-reform-proposal-/
Thanks for ruining a serious proposal for the future by linking to that nonsense.
Paper ballots only, with the paper being the official vote. I don't mind computer assisted tabulation to speed that up. But they've proven that no digital records can ever be trusted.
Thing is it appears China printed millions of Biden ballots last fall ...
... paper ....
That's fair. But the Dominion stuff was all electronic, and that's where the real volume happened. No paper to even tecount. If they have to print paper and fill in the bubbles, they have to do it everywhere. And we know in GA, there were pristine ballots that would never pass scrutiny in a legit audit. A legit oversight process on the day of, would have caught it as well.
Yes a fair point as well.
The bulk of election fraud isn't done through machine manipulation. They still do it the old fashioned way by stuffing ballot boxes, ballot harvesting, and good old fashioned vote dumping.
I don't think they'll use machine fraud as the main way. Because it's looked at too heavily now.
You can't stop dishonesty and where there's a will there's a way. No one wants to say if, but the hard truth is how bad do we want to make sure the other guy doesn't get in? If they cheat, you cheat bigger. There is no high road. You get your people in and we push reforms to stop cheating. But you're going to have to cheat to get them there. It's the hard truth.
Well.. Fractional voting mist never happen again. And as we can see. The law doesnt give a shit.
It's both. They need the fraudulent paper ballots to match the computer totals when doing simple recounts (not real audits). That's why they always scream loudly for recounts as proof there was no fraud. The digital fraud alone is not enough.
If they have the fraudulent paper ballots, why do they need any digital fraud? Couldn't they have just fed the fraudulent ballots through the machine until the got the total they wanted?
Yep the paper fraud is a little curtain for the machine fraud.
Cheating isnt an option for us. Two tier justice system, remember?
Yep. My rules for voting:
Proof of citizenship.
Photographic ID.
Only in-person voting on the day of the election.
Only paper ballots.
Strict chain-of-custody. If chain of custody is broken, all ballots in question shall be invalid.
Every ballot must be counted separately by two teams each consisting of a registered member of both parties who have long-term partisan voting record for the party to which they belong, of which both people must agree on how each vote is counted, and observed by another team of like composition, who must rectify any discrepancies between the final tallies, if any occur, and all three teams must sign an oath under penalty of perjury and imprisonment that certifies that the ballots are authentic and have been counted correctly.
Security cameras at all polling stations, covering every inch of anywhere ballots are manufactured, stored, transported in/to, and counted, monitored by two teams of two people with the same qualifications as above, with a team of like composition, with each team accountable to the other.
If any evidence of fraud is presented, an automatic recount shall begin involving all ballots originating at the precinct or election in question, and shall follow the same processes followed above.
My idea is that if you have two highly partisan people on opposite sides counting the votes and making sure the count is secure and accurate, neither one will allow the other to commit, allow, or ignore fraud. And second team is to ensure a corrupt deal or other foul play doesn't occur. I know that voter fraud is a uniquely left-wing problem and conservatives don't do it, but all laws must be applied equally, and I want all cheating to the prevented, even if it benefits us.